Re: On RC4 in C

["Roger Schlafly" <roger_95073@my-dejanews.com>]

"William Hugh Murray" <whmurray@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:3A9BF442.7E840E64@optonline.net...
Getting off-topic here ...

> I was with IBM when the DoJ was even more unhappy with their business
practices
> than they are with Microsoft's.  There was never a final judgement in
IBM's
> case but my reading of history suggests that the issues are, for the most
> part,  moot.

Moot now, yes. Not in the 1970s.

>  DoJ abandoned its requests for relief and IBM never achieved the
> kind of dominance which the DoJ seemed to fear.  Some have suggested that
that
> was because, if IBM ever dreamed of such dominance, it took its eye off
the
> ball while it battled the government.

IBM used to have 70% of the computer biz. IBM did change its business
practices significantly as the result of its various antitrust legal
difficulties.
Some people argue that the rise of Microsoft was only possible because
IBM was restrained.

>  I await the final judgement of the
> courts in the Microsoft case, though I might prefer a settlement.  However
the
> battle now joined ends, I hope that MS is not guilty of such an error.
However
> it ends, I doubt seriously that it will make anybody, much less everybody,
> happy with any, much less all, of Microsoft's business practices.  (Does
that
> sentence scan?) On the other hand, I also doubt that, at least in the long
run,
> it will make any difference.

Perhaps, but the MS lawsuit has already had the effect of curbing some
MS business practices. Companies from AOL to RealNetworks have
prospered as a result.